In People v. Bosca, No. 317633, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in requiring the defendant to register as a sex offender, where the defendant was convicted of unlawful imprisonment of a minor in violation of MCL 750.349b. The Court determined that the required registration was constitutional and was proper under the 2011 version of SORA applicable in this case. Even though the underlying conduct was not of a sexual nature, registration is required because unlawful imprisonment involved a victim under the age of 18 is a listed offense Read More

In People v. Tomasik, No. 149371, the Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the trial court erred by (1) admitting a recording of the entire police interrogation; (2) admitting expert testimony regarding child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome under MRE 702; and (3) denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial based on newly disclosed impeachment evidence from a 2003 report concluding that the abuse victim tended to be dishonest.Read More

In People v. Cowan, No. 149595, the Michigan Supreme Court remanded to the Court of Appeals, directing it to consider whether the defendant is entitled to relief because the State of Michigan, whether deliberately or negligently, failed to execute a warrant for a probation violation while it knew that the defendant was serving a prison sentence in Indiana. The Court directed the Court of Appeals’ attention to People v. Ortman, 209 Mich. App. 251 (1995), in which it held the warrant should have been waived when the state waited almost two years to execute the warrant, and People v. Diamond, 59 Mich. App. 581 (1975), in which the Court of Appeals held that probation authorities must use due diligence in executing a probation revocation warrant once it has issued. The Court directed the Court of Appeals to compare the Michigan cases with Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (1976), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that a prisoner was not denied due process when authorities waited to execute a parole violation warrant until he was done serving prison time for another crime. Read More

In People v. Dunbar, No. 150371, the Michigan Supreme Court granted mini-oral argument to consider whether to grant leave to appeal on the issue of whether the obstruction of a license plate with a towing ball violates MCL 257.225(2), therefore allowing officers to conduct a traffic stop. The defendant was convicted of drug violations after a search of his vehicle after a traffic stop revealed contraband. The officers conducted the stop because the vehicle’s license plate was partially obstructed with the vehicle’s towing ball. MCL 257.225(2) provides that “[t]he [license] plate shall be maintained free from foreign materials that obscure or partially obscure the registration information and in a clearly legible condition.” The Court of Appeals held, over a dissent, that the stop was unconstitutional, as the presence of a towing ball did not violate the statute, particularly because thousands of Michigan vehicles are equipped with towing balls. Our prior post discussing the Court of Appeals opinion is here.Read More

The Michigan Court of Appeals inCity of Sterling Heights v. Chrysler, No. 317310, held that a party may seek a tax exemption for air pollution control systems, and such systems need not be the purpose of the entire structure. Further, the Court held that before the State Tax Commission (“Commission”) grants an air pollution tax exemption, it must seek the approval of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (“MDEQ”).Read More

InAdler v. Dormio, No. 319608, the Court of Appeals held that a person who obtains a judgment under the Revocation of Paternity Act may seek relief from a prior support order under applicable Michigan Court Rules. Therefore, the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the trial court’s order that denied defendant’s motion to vacate a child support order.Read More

According to the Court of Appeals, Michigan’s Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA) does not permit a circuit court to deny a request to transfer an Indian child custody proceeding to a tribal court based on the timeliness of the request or the effect the transfer may have on the child’s best interests despite the merit of these considerations. As such, the Court reversed the circuit court’s denial of the tribe’s transfer request inIn re Spears, No. 320584, even though the proceedings began back in 2010 and the tribe only submitted its request after the Michigan Children’s Institute failed to recommend the tribe’s preferred adoptive placement.Read More

Michigan law provides that when parents share custody, one parent may not move more than 100 miles from the child’s legal residence at the commencement of the divorce action without obtaining either the consent of the other parent or court approval. MCL 722.31(1). In Eickelberg v. Eickelberg, No. 318840, the Court of Appeals held that for purposes of this rule, the distance of such a move should be measured starting from the child’s legal residence when the action for divorce is filed. Read More

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.